Started By
Message
re: Revenue sharing having no specific cap per sport is going to have parity implications
Posted on 6/9/25 at 11:22 am to TexasWranglers
Posted on 6/9/25 at 11:22 am to TexasWranglers
quote:
What I can see happening is private NIL handling the big 2 sports
What is Private NIL? And will compliance let the shorthorns reinvent big business just because? Anything above 600 bucks in NIL is going to have to comply with the new big brother in town.
1
Posted on 6/9/25 at 11:57 am to Mstate
I've been saying this for a while, but this is a hard headed bunch up in here.
This revenue sharing means little in my opinion. Players are still getting their NIL in addition to the sharing. Any effort of rule, law, regulation, requirement gets shot down in court. Some will say that to compete in college sports you have to agree to the rules, blah, blah, blah. If this is true then why are we currently in this position. Agree to ncaa argument takes us back to square one.
This revenue sharing means little in my opinion. Players are still getting their NIL in addition to the sharing. Any effort of rule, law, regulation, requirement gets shot down in court. Some will say that to compete in college sports you have to agree to the rules, blah, blah, blah. If this is true then why are we currently in this position. Agree to ncaa argument takes us back to square one.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 11:58 am to bamameister
First, grow up “shorthorns” lol. Second my understanding is there can still be unlimited NIL resources from private businesses so this agreement changes nothing in regards to that as you can not regulate private entities, just the universities.
Third if it does universities will just revert back to paying under the table.
Third if it does universities will just revert back to paying under the table.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 12:03 pm to Landmass
quote:
Why would the SEC drop what will be a high confidence win for a team that spends?
Because the can get that exact same thing by scheduling lower schools out of conference and not have to pay a school that puts out a shite product equivalent to a rent a win.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 12:07 pm to Mstate
quote:They have already said that players can have individual NIL deals that don't count toward the cap (Not school collective NIL but Joe's Burgers NIL to star QB will still be legal and not part of the cap.)
Under the table cash payments will make a comeback as a way to circumvent the “cap” or whatever tf we’re calling it
Posted on 6/9/25 at 12:18 pm to Landmass
quote:
Title 9 lawsuits will also be forthcoming because the revenue sports will see the most payments to athletes, and, to be honest, the entirety of women's sports rarely, if ever, make money.
Sure, but what happens when you have someone inevitably show up like Livvy Dunne who become more popular than most of your players in even the biggest sports? I mean, women's gymnastics didn't even get a mention when they were talking about breaking down where the money would go, IIRC.
She's an outlier, certainly, but considering the number of collegiate athletes almost assuredly not the last.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 12:23 pm to TexasWranglers
quote:
Second my understanding is there can still be unlimited NIL resources from private businesses so this agreement changes nothing in regards to that as you can not regulate private entities, just the universities.
Big Business is not how you were buying all those Lamborghinis shorthorn. Big Boosters were. Yeah, things have changed.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 12:29 pm to bamameister
Leasing Lambos moron try and keep up. And if it’s legal who t f cares? We could spend a billion on athletics if it’s legal what’s your point? Does Bama not pay a penny towards its NIL and athletics department? Basically what you crying about is Texas boosters are paying for Lambos? So what if they were lol? Do you think those boosters don’t also own businesses? Doesn’t matter if it’s boosters or businesses it’s going from a private entity to a player.
Wow never thought I’d have an argument with a Bama fan about paying players given Bamas history of dropping bags pre NIL
Wow never thought I’d have an argument with a Bama fan about paying players given Bamas history of dropping bags pre NIL
Posted on 6/9/25 at 12:36 pm to MillerLiteTime
So how does Title IX play into this....when do women's sports demand "equal" cap......slippery slope coming.....
Posted on 6/9/25 at 12:42 pm to TexasWranglers
quote:
Leasing Lambos moron try and keep up. And if it’s legal who t f cares? We could spend a billion on athletics if it’s legal what’s your point?
The point is shorthorn, the party is over. The hard cap is here, and the collective's slush funds are about to get a serious rectal exam.
You can sit here at this point and run your mouth about your oil money, but that's just you running your mouth. This is about college football, not about your team. That will become apparent soon enough.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:11 pm to bamameister
Never ran my mouth about oil money. You still haven’t made a coherent point. If universities must only spend $20.5m a calendar year for all sports and assuming there is no cheating going on I like our chances given facilities, recruiting, and coaching.
Do you seriously think Texas wins the past 2 years is just because we dropped bags? Like no other school did that? If so such a lazy take
Do you seriously think Texas wins the past 2 years is just because we dropped bags? Like no other school did that? If so such a lazy take
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:26 pm to TexasWranglers
quote:
Never ran my mouth about oil money.
"Do you think those boosters don’t also own businesses? Doesn’t matter if it’s boosters or businesses it’s going from a private entity to a player."
Thus, my comments about the new rectal exam awaiting boosters attempt to continue to throw money at players.
quote:
assuming there is no cheating going on I like our chances given facilities, recruiting, and coaching.
You frankly haven't had that conversation with me. And this thread hasn't discussed what a level playing field looks like. Lots of SEC teams take no backseat to your facilities, coaches, and recruiting. Including TAMU.
I would also submit that in the 4-year cycle of collectives, slush funds, and boosters, BAMA was number 1 in high school recruiting.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:49 pm to MillerLiteTime
NIL is still alive and well right?
Problem solved
Problem solved
Posted on 6/9/25 at 1:52 pm to magildachunks
quote:
Alabama ain't competing at the highest level in football anymore anyway since Saban's gone
This statement needs a 5Y analysis.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 2:19 pm to MillerLiteTime
None of this will matter once the fr ale athletes suit because their going to say the money has to be divided equally or it’s gender discrimination.
Posted on 6/9/25 at 3:41 pm to remaster916
quote:
NIL is still alive and well right? Problem solved
Not really if what has been agreed to in the settlement is actually enforced. Legitimate NIL is still allowed but NIL compensation now has to be cleared by a new 3rd party company that determines the players fair market value. If they say the NIL offer is more than what a player is actually worth in endorsements, branding etc, then the player becomes ineligible if he continues to accept the above market amount.
In other words, NIL payments are about to go down significantly so top recruits are going to expect to get a good deal from the revenue sharing fund. If UConn offers a 5 star PG 3 mil a year in revenue sharing, Texas can’t match that with booster NIL funds anymore and will only have maybe low 6 figures to offer in revenue sharing since football is getting most of it.
Page 2 of 2
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News